Boredom

  • Content count

    36
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Boredom

  • Rank
    Sr. Action Poster
  1. That's all well and good, and while I am quite satisfied with what I got from my backing of this project, I'm just disappointed with all the attitude towards the people who didn't like it, especially since the brief was pretty objectively missed. I have to say that this video shows a publisher-esque attitude from some people at Double Fine, with statements that downplay/dismiss disappointed people and their very legit feedback instead of addressing them with good faith. The project itself, while clearly inspired, still has had compromises - which is fine - but baring teeth against people who call you out on it is not cool. There's too much defensiveness, revisionism and denial around here and my level of trust towards DF has dropped as a result of it. On the fan side of things, the whole "I liked it so screw you for not liking it" is ridiculous and people who do this should be ashamed. Sorry, DF, but in some ways you guys are acting pretty close to those publishers that you don't really like, what with all this embargo stuff and all the defensiveness.
  2. You can't speak for everyone on the topic of why they decided to be backers. You can only speak for yourself. I backed to give Tim and Double Fine creative freedom, to make the game he and they want to make, free from the restrictions of publisher demands. What would have been the point of all that if he was going to succumb to the individual self-serving demands of 90,000 backers? That would have been worse than working with a publisher! I mean seriously, we've been hanging out here for two years and there's still people who have learned practically nothing from all this. Sorry but his point is absolutely valid, since the original pitch was for an old-school adventure game. Frankly, I think you're being dismissive. What we got from Double Fine was what a publisher would have done with adventure games - the talk in this episode of new audiences discovering adventure games, and "moving past those few hardcore gamers" for the puzzle design, is simply not what the pitch was. It's a pretty cynical thing to see Tim to downplay "hardcore gamers" since they're the ones who made this possible in the first place. Nonetheless, I personally actually enjoyed the end result. But I have to be fair - it's wrong to dismiss people who've feel they've been bait-and-switched. The case can certainly be argued and it's wrong to shut that discussion down.
  3. I honestly did not get ever stuck for more than 1-2 minutes in this game. The only thing that comes to mind is that it took me a few extra minutes to get my bearings at the beginning of the game (knife puzzle).
  4. Puzzles you would have done

    - I thought you'd have to "break" ALL of Shay's missions in order to move forward (a puzzle for each scenario, some of which would require items from the other scenarios/areas) - I was sure there'd be a way to get un-banned from the Train scenario for some reason - I expected to be able to go past the snake in the forest on Vella's side of things - I expected there to be a large area after solving the Riddle of Yorn, with at least one unique puzzle
  5. Anybody else a bit disappointed?

    The artistry in Broken Age is top notch, and the writing is generally good. But I found it really disappointing that the game is a mere 2.5-3 hours long and devoid of any real puzzles. Most of the "puzzles" didn't require any kind of attention span. You generally just keep moving forward without having to experiment with anything or reexplore areas where you might have missed something. Also, Vella as a character didn't resonate with me like I originally thought she would. As many have pointed out, her VA is bland. She also seems very one-note to me - she's very clearly a warrior at heart and that's all there is to her as of Act 1 (as far as I can discern, anyway). Shay on the other hand is not only more intriguing (as his backstory has some mystery to it), but also is faced with events that lead to character development (I'm being vague in order to avoid spoilers). If I could, would I ask for a refund? No. The documentary alone is worth the price I paid, and I think Act 2 might improve on the cons I described above. Act 1 for me is a 6 or 7/10.
  6. In your example, you made a tempered suggestion, while this thread is entirely one-sided in its premise. The bolded part is the opposite attitude of the OP of this thread, who assumes that the view opposing hers would be bad and damaging to society in the most tragic of ways, whereas you are actually open minded in your example and clear in your intent to serve the game and not yourself. It's a key difference. I am sure that nobody reacted to your suggestion in the same way that people reacted to this thread.
  7. Fair enough, I wasn't aware it was a reaction to that. There's definitely some hostility in the thread - some of which I concede came from me. I don't think it's a strawman, in that the OP's request takes for granted that her worldview is the only valid one, and any other view is bad. She explicitly states that a traditional representation would be straight-up invalid and damaging to society. The OP took a hardline, absolutist and exclusive position which says "traditional=bad" and "OP's nontraditional view=good and takes this as objective fact. Instead of saying, perhaps, that she hopes her own view might be represented somewhere in the game, she instead makes claims that any gender portrayal other than the one she promotes must be wrong. To top it off, the tone of the request and subsequent posts in favor of the OP is preachy e.g. "Don't miss this opportunity to show that traditional gender roles are bad, it would be sad otherwise, and also it would objectively make the game better and richer;" "the game developers are responsible for the cultural and societal footprint of their work! It would be a shame if it sent a 'bad' message!" The OP volunteers her definition of bad as absolute truth, of course. That a boy be portrayed boyishly is being presented as irrefutably bad by OP. This is downright zealotous behavior. I feel like some people in the thread are very far gone into the rhetoric and, condescendingly, don't even bother debating genuinely. Fair enough. I just wanted to draw attention to the fact that, going by the OP's logic, I too should feel "excluded" as I'm not represented in any media (I can't even think of one instance in any media). But the reality is that nobody is excluded. There is no intent, subconscious or otherwise, to exclude anyone. Proponents of the OP seem to want to take steps against alleged subconscious exclusion. This borders on witch hunt territory. I am saying that nobody can say "this is better." There are a myriad of possible outcomes. Maybe it would work great, or maybe it would come off forced and hurt the game. I don't claim to know. The OP and her proponents presume to know, and I take issue with that (as well as her presumption of guilt lest the game prove otherwise). PS- Why must the game consider its cultural footprint? Why not just let it simply and organically be one of many data points which make up culture? Culture is emergent that way, even though some people seem to want to engineer it.
  8. Is this some kind of meta-humor? I can't tell. Hint: You're complaining about alleged complaints about other people's concerns. Why not address the points which you disagree with instead of meta-commentary on the thread? It seems only SurplusGamer has the integrity to actually debate them instead of spewing generic rebuttals.
  9. This is one hell of a strawman argument. Nobody ever said they don't want minorities to appear in the game or that the game can't be enjoyed unless they are "explicitly not represented." This is a cheap attempt at discrediting the opposing view instead of actually addressing it. The premise of this thread is just: "I have this social issue which affects me, and it would be so unfortunate if this game didn't make a point to validate my worldview." The part that certain posters keep ignoring is that I myself am part of a minority too so don't make this about the whole overused "white male" rhetoric. The game has no responsibility to validate MY worldview or that of the OP, period. This entire discussion is neither here nor there. People need to learn to be objective and not take for granted that their own worldview is unquestionably the superior one, hyperbolically "expressing concern" and fear of "exclusion" about the possibility that this game doesn't "take the opportunity to be better" by validating the OP's worldview. This thread is rife with claims that boil down to "considering me would make this game objectively better! Otherwise I'd feel excluded." Absolutely shameless.
  10. You are acting like it's the game's responsibility to question them. It may or may not. It's not anyone's prerogative but the creators'. They are beyond being criticized preemptively for perceived slights which might actually not be slights at all, but simply a different choice of what to represent. I'm definitely allergic to the injection of social issues into someone else's creative process and the message it may or may not send, especially being concerned that the message it sends isn't consistent with OP's worldview, as though OP's view were objectively superior in a fashion that is mutually exclusive with the alternative. It comes off as "PC police" behavior, even if worded mildly. i.e. negative towards transgendered people. It's not the game's responsibility to address this. It is not necessarily objectively "worse" despite OP thinking so. It is unreasonable to suggest that other game creators agree with you. Maybe they do, but it's not anyone's right to tell them that they should. I think we're going in circles here and restating our points. We simply cannot agree on the core of the issue, so let's at least agree to disagree.
  11. I'm not referring to the intent behind it. Rather, I'm saying that you don't have a right to demand to be represented in everything. In fact I can't even think of 1 game that represents people like me at all. I don't think any exist. And that is fine. It's not their job to accommodate my insecurities or "deliver social justice," period. Your claim that I can't see it is pretty condescending. I can see it and experience it daily. I just think it would shameful to expect everyone to get with the program of only sending messages that reinforce my worldview. Ironically, OP needs to open her mind that other worldviews continue to exist and be represented despite her plight and this is not something you can be "concerned" about or feel "excluded" from. This is all well and good, but the OP comes off much more presumptive and ironically prejudiced about the game design with a slew of negative assumptions. Assumptions by the OP: - Traditional portrayal of genders is the same as being negative towards transgender people. No, it's not. Stop being paranoid. - Transgender people would be somehow excluded if the characters don't consider a broader spectrum of gender definitions. You are not in the game. The game is not about you or me. You cannot be excluded from something that you are not in. - The game shouldn't reward a boy for being boyish or a girl for being girlish. This is not something that can be requested. Maybe they're going for a fairytale aesthetic where this would be the norm. Maybe gender reinforcement is part of the game world. You have no idea and can't make such a firm statement. The specificity of this request comes off more as an assumption that it is objectively bad to reinforce gender roles. It is not as objective as OP suggests, that is simply your worldview. The premise of this thread has quite a few presumptions of persecution presented as an objective truth. The core of the OP's argument denies the existence of other worldviews that may not jive with her own. PS- the transgender person you mentioned earlier, who was allegedly called "it" at that recent event, may have ended up being a liar (I think this may be who you were talking about). Check the thread over on NeoGAF if you're interested.
  12. I didn't say you were contradicting yourself outright, but you're softening the intensity of the request to give it an air of reason. The reality of the request is that it's a strong one. We're talking about societal issues like people being excluded. Bolded part: You're saying it's not a restriction and won't ruin the creative process, but I think any kind of explicit request vis-a-vis a societal issue can't be anything other than a political statement. It's saying "make sure you don't offend people like me" - which would be understandable, except it's coming from a place of preemptively being offended. This is the part I really take issue with here. Anyone can easily do the same. I myself am a minority in several ways and yet I don't want to tell them to explicitly make the game inclusive to me. It would be wrong. I don't want to play that game and I am not a special snowflake whose plight must be reflected by the game. It is doubly wrong if I am "concerned" preemptively that the game "excludes" me - an idea that comes from negative assumptions and persecution complex. It is not a reasonable request. There's no such thing as being excluded here. This is the key. To act like you're excluded if the characters in a game don't reflect or consider your plight is extremely self-centered. The game's role is not as a vehicle to causes such as this except in the event that the creator decided as such. "It doesn't require much to implement" and "it is a great opportunity to explore" - but here, you are going with the assumption that it's already conceded that the game needs to implement this. And it doesn't need to, not for the cause of the OP or anyone else. It is not the game's responsibility to do this. edit: As an aside, my reply to this: There's nothing wrong with the message in your example. What can be considered wrong is the lack of other games which send a message of gender non-conformism being good, as opposed to censoring the message of traditional gender behavior. It takes all kinds. The OP does not recognize this and thinks her view is objectively superior to the traditional view. But neither is superior and both messages are right. It's wrong to say "Don't represent boys and girls the traditional way, represent them my way." Maybe the game already does this, and maybe it doesn't. Maybe it's somewhere in between. Who knows. But it's entirely the authors' message to make. Some games reward you for killing people. Other games penalize you. Diversity is great. Pushing 1 idea as the right answer that everyone must adopt is not.
  13. I'd say that this is rebuttal is just semantics. Fine, she's not asking for adjustments to the game per se, or for them to outright derail the design process ("go out of their way"). But the request is nowhere near as mild as you paint it. This is the original wording of it: The bolded is accusatory of the media at large as well as being a display of the paranoia I was talking about earlier. The idea that people are being erased because of there being "boyish" boys and "girly" girls makes it sound like the OP has a persecution complex. For crying out loud, we're talking about characters with words like "excluded." I'd argue that this is, in reality, simply the OP projecting her insecurities and requesting explicit validation. Your interpretation of what's being said is so benign that it begs the question of why there's even a concern at all. For the OP to have posted a thread on this subject, and used words like "concern," "erase," and "exclude," I'd say that the OP made a much stronger statement than you claim. You're really just watering down the actual OP. What universe are you living in where 'concern' 'erase' and 'exclude' are so bold? A concern is just that - someone someone is concerned about. They don't have to be staying awake at night. I'm concerned about train prices, for example, but I'm not really doing much about it except occasionally grumbling, and if they do go up I'll live. From the perspective of a trans* person I don't think it's much of an exaggeration at all to describe them as feeling erased and excluded by a lot of culture. In fact, the sort of replies here are a perfect example of that - the argument goes that their concerns are just not worthy of consideration, that they are such a minority that any attempt to show any sort of sensitivity can only be 'pandering' as a lot of people call it. Only the other day a trans* friend of mine was referred to as 'it' repeatedly on stage among other things, and when she spoke up about it she was hounded by death threats and told that if she didn't want to be made fun of then she should just not go to these events. That's the very definition of exclusion. Now, of course, nobody is saying that therefore this means that all games need to have trans* people in them or be ultra-proactive about to making characters that buck gender trends. But what the OP is fairly humbly asking is that Broken Age not be another example in media of girls and boys being rewarded for fitting very neatly into their stereotyped gender roles, and maybe the characters could be a bit more nuanced than that. As many people later pointed out, they trusted DF not to be so callous with their character designs. The reason that the OP felt the need to bring it up in the first place is that she is part of one of the most excluded (yes, I'll use it too) minorities currently in existence, and felt she could offer some perspective on gender that otherwise might be missed. It's really no biggie. You end on "it's no biggie" but everything before that is seriously a big deal (bolded). Which is it? Is it a biggie or not? * If it's a big deal, then the request made toward this game is invalid for the multitude of reasons which boil down to - this game is not the vehicle for that. It would mean that this thread is attempting to meddle. * If it's not a big deal, then your interpretation of the OP is correct. It boils down to "don't make the characters one dimensional" in which case why does this thread exist. Why is there talk of social injustice in a thread that you claim is about a benign argument. It really looks like there's a huge claim and a strong request made by the OP, but it's later downplayed by its proponents as "not a big deal, just a simple request" to make it seem more reasonable when it's actually a request for the game to validate someone's particular view which it absolutely should not. Ironically, the OP says it would feel "forced" if boys were "boyish" etc - yet this thread is either a request for pandering (this would feel forced) or not a thread at all ("don't make the characters one dimensional is all I'm saying!").
  14. I'd say that this is rebuttal is just semantics. Fine, she's not asking for adjustments to the game per se, or for them to outright derail the design process ("go out of their way"). But the request is nowhere near as mild as you paint it. This is the original wording of it: The bolded is accusatory of the media at large as well as being a display of the paranoia I was talking about earlier. The idea that people are being erased because of there being "boyish" boys and "girly" girls makes it sound like the OP has a persecution complex. For crying out loud, we're talking about characters with words like "excluded." I'd argue that this is, in reality, simply the OP projecting her insecurities and requesting explicit validation. Your interpretation of what's being said is so benign that it begs the question of why there's even a concern at all. For the OP to have posted a thread on this subject, and used words like "concern," "erase," and "exclude," I'd say that the OP made a much stronger statement than you claim. You're really just watering down the actual OP to the point where nothing can be discussed because all the points are so diluted, leaving only things that go without saying, like "don't make the characters one dimensional." I'm pretty sure this thread wasn't made just to say "don't make the characters one dimensional." Let me add a personal anecdote. I have been partially paralyzed for 6 months now (legs; I am expected to recover fully at some point FYI) - and yet it would be really sad if I made a thread requesting disabled characters to appear in the game. I could say "Not everyone is fully functional! I don't want to meddle, pick what feels right for your world! But don't forget not everyone can walk! It would be really sad if Double Fine added yet another game on the market which isn't cripple-friendly!" But I won't do that, because that's just an incredibly embarrassing thing to do, and with good reason. Some food for thought: http://community-sitcom.wikia.com/wiki/Greendale_Human_Being
  15. I'm sorry, did my replies come across as passive aggressive? My intention was for them to be merely aggressive - not towards the people I'm replying to, mind you, but towards the kind of attitude that labels the perfectly reasonable and mild mannered points raised in the original post and subsequently clarified as 'paranoid' and then go on to twist those words to make them appear as if some big political demand was being made. Yes, I am aggressive towards that kind of attitude, and with reason. The idea that someone can't calmly state their views (which, when you get to the meat of them are actually not even particularly shocking) without being accused of paranoia or meddling is something that I find highly disheartening, and I will - even aggressively - speak against. Your points, meanwhile, miss the target in exactly the same way as many of the other posters here, and I'm sure I don't know what the entirely irrelevant link about sexual dimorphism was supposed to add to the discussion as it is, by the way, a related but very separate issue to gender which is what the poster wanted to start a conversation about. The manner in which a view is stated (e.g. calmly) doesn't prevent the view from being scrutinized. The content of the post is a request that attempts to meddle. I am insecure about things too, yet I will not ask for the game to be adjusted to make me feel better about my life. This should be simple to understand. Explain to me how it is missing the target.